Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:14:48 01/05/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 04, 2004 at 23:04:55, Christophe Theron wrote: >On January 04, 2004 at 11:10:41, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On January 04, 2004 at 11:00:31, Dan Andersson wrote: >> >>> I admire your persistance. I guess most of us that have a mathematical >>>statistics education got tired explaining things after the first thread or so. >>> >>>MvH Dan Andersson >> >>I, too, have a "mathematical statistics education." >> >>What bugs me is that all of the CCC bulletins seem to suggest that those who run >>and evaluate tournaments look only at the win/loss statistics. There is >>considerably more information in a game score than just the final game result. >> >>Throwing away useful information is what I call "blind adherence to statistics." >> One needs to rise above one's formal education and supplement it with good >>thinking. >> >>: ) >> >>Bob D. > > > >The games themselves do not contain more information about the relative strength >of the opponents than the bare winning percentage of the winner. > >That should not be forgotten. > > > > Christophe No The games have more information but the problem is how to interpret them. Let give an extreme example when it is easy to learn from only 2 games who is better. Suppose that the loser program in both games does mistakes that 2 ply search can avoid and not one mistake. First it is losing a pawn and later it is losing a knight and later the queen and finally it is checkmated. Suppose that it happens in 2 games. You can say that the winner is better based only on the games but you cannot say it based only on the results. Usually learning from the games is harder but it does not mean that they have not more information then the results. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.